15 Nebraska
As we first reported in October:

We don’t consider development projects like 455 Prentiss to be flips. The quick resale of 15 Nebraska, however, fits the flipping bill. In the words of a plugged-in tipster with respect to the Bernal property which sold for $660,000 this past July (i.e., three months ago): ”Sellers stayed in the home for a month or two after closing. Sellers finally moved out maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago and all the buyer did was repair floors, install some windows, very inexpensively update kitchen and a bath, and paint…”

The 1,610 square foot home at 15 Nebraska with an unwarranted cottage out back has just been listed for $799,000 with “offers to be reviewed on 10/30 by 5pm” and no recent permits for any substantive work online.

Having closed escrow with a reported contract price of $792,500 on December 27, a permit to replace the foundation of 15 Nebraska was issued on December 28 and there’s now “a stack of lumber in the driveway and…work being done in the garage level” according to a tipster.
Filed today, an anonymous complaint citing “significant work being done at [15 Nebraska] without a permit.” As always, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
Welcome back to Bernal Flipper Heights [SocketSite]

20 thoughts on “Welcome Back To <strike>Bernal</strike> <strike>Flipper</strike> Fixer Heights”
  1. I’m confused – is there a permit or not? Or is there work being done outside the constraints of the permit issued on the 28th?
    [Editor’s Note: As reported above, a permit to replace the foundation has been issued. Whether the actual or intended scope of work is beyond that which has been approved has yet to be determined.]

  2. It’s fairly common to have permits pulled for significant work and have the contractor doing more than what’s on the permit. Most of the time there’s nothing wrong to it. I’d put this in par with the gross undervaluation of permited work. Then once in a while there’s the case of the owner who tries to push his way through.
    A NV friend a few months back got a heads up from her neighbor that he’d be replacing the garden staircase. The permit stated “in kind” but when the work was started it appeared there was much more being done, like a new deck, change in the orientation of the staircase affecting a few people’s privacy, etc… Another neighbor filed a complaint, all work stopped until they pulled better permits.
    The owner doing the work is now being viewed as the official street douche.
    He didn’t have to put the old staircase back though (something I have seen. Ouch.).

  3. Interesting that the sales price closed down in the span of 2 months. I understand that short-term holds don’t usually work out well, and feel a little bad for the October owner to have to lose some (not-insignificant-to-me) amount in such a short amount of time.

  4. Soccermom, huh? Looks like this sold in July for $660,000 then sold again in December for $792,500 (aftering going on the market in Oct which prompted the original ss post that is quoted from above). I’m not sure how you or Jack can look at those facts and think someone lost money or sold off the fridge & kitchen cabinets.

  5. @soccermom
    It wasn’t me. Like I said in a previous post, I was surprised that the seller didn’t do the full remodel but instead appears to have left some meat on the bone. I wasn’t sure he was going to come out ahead but he did.
    And now I’m wondering how much the buyer will get out of it because it seems he’s going to do some real work and probably sell again. But maybe he’ll live there. But it’s not your normal buyer that is out fixing the foundation only a few days after close of escrow in the middle of the holidays.

  6. Oh oops. You are right, Boo. I did mis-read the history. I had read the July transaction to be sold at $799 (when in fact it was sold at $660), then re-sold in Dec to be $792, and thus the “losing money” comment from me.
    Boy, I guess the $792-$660 profit is a really nice one, especially so for a 6-month hold.
    I hope the $792 buyer/contractor comes out OK.

  7. Hi Rillion and Boo,
    I didn’t say anyone lost money on the deal, though I find your enthusiasm and interest in defending the publicly observed success of the flippers remarkable for disinterested third parties 🙂
    My observation is that yes, it was a good short term hold in a rising San Francisco real estate market, good choice. However, the modicum of money spent on that low-grade kitchen was wasted, if the party to whom the flippers sold it is already putting in a new foundation. The rest of that interior is gonzo in 2 months.
    So, if I was able through socketsite to “magically contact” the people who flipped the house, I would ask if they were able to pull out their stuff and make it an even better trade.
    Nice work on the flip.

  8. I don’t care about flips either way (to defend or attack) just was puzzled by your snark directed at someone that was acurately correcting a previous poster who misread the facts of the post. I am a disinterested party to flips and this particular party as I am not in the industry and have never flipped a property.

  9. Got it.
    Got it.
    Got it.
    You were just rolling through the comments section like George Zimmerman in a Florida gated community, keeping an eye on things. Neighborhood Watch, but like for snark.
    In a minute, the editor is going to have to step in and take away my recess privileges.

  10. soccermom, seriously? Rillion has been posting here forever. And, although there is only one eddy, Rillion is up there with FAB and sparky-b in comment quality.

  11. Yeah, generally I do browse through the comments looking for hyperbole, errors, and snark, and such. It beats doing real work.
    I too miss LMiM, his posts helped make the day go by quicker.

  12. I don’t miss that smug hater. He never knew anything about SF real estate except one part of town, but he’d always try to go at those who did.

  13. Heh, especially funny how he is so “missed” in a Bernal thread! Man, was Satchel ever wrong about how Bernal is turning out. LOL.

  14. but Satchel did know when to short bank stocks. I wonder if he posts anywhere — perhaps on a rare mandolin forum?

  15. Yeah LMRiM was an interesting guy, and added to the discussions on SF RE. But I think time would bear out that his “rent long term” model would not fare well. With rents up over the last 2-3 years, and RE values going back up too, the post 2008-09 trend is not in his favor. The next 2-3 years will tell us more about all this, and will certainly be interesting to watch unfold.

  16. LMRIM was renting a house in an expensive neighborhood in Marin. Undoubtedly, may of those Marin rental houses are being fixed up to be sold to owner-occupiers, as prices rise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *